I have been down for a week with the Islamofascist flu, but the amoxicillin seems, finally, to be kicking in.
Xoff and the Journal-Sentinel don't like Mark Green's claim that the paper reported that Doyle's lawyer tried to secretly rig an election board in order to steal the election.
They are right in that the paper didn't characterize it that way but, as political ads go, that's a minor offense. Can the facts that they did report be characterized that way?
"Steal the election" is a bit of hyperbole. Most people would assume that has something to do with vote totals, although Doyle was certainly not motivated by anything other than gaining an advantage in the election. I wouldn't have put it that way (but, then again, no one would hire me as a political consultant), but still a minor infraction.
Did Doyle's lawyer "secretly rig" the vote? Yes and no. What he did was done in secret. But I don't know that he could have rigged the vote since the fix was in as soon as the Dems knew what would favor Doyle and harm Green. He was just confirming the tank job.